Threats in : An Integrative Approach to Prevent Crisis Situations

Author: Nino Zufall University of Twente P.O. Box 217, 7500AE Enschede The Netherlands [email protected]

ABSTRACT While social media has shifted organizational from one-way communication to free conversation, organizations have lost power to what is being said about them in the world. This can lead to threats for an organization in many cases and many ways. The purpose of this research is to bring together established theories in crisis , reputation management and social media communication about reaction strategies towards such reputation threats from social media users. This work covers a critical literature review of well-established theories in this research field, discusses them and comes up with universally applicable strategies. It was found that the established crisis communication theories still fit in the social media environment when minor adjustments are applied. Although the theories for crisis reactions already are being discussed for over 15 years, there is still a need for empirical evidence, especially when applied to the social media environment. The originality of this research is given by the creation of a transition from historical theories from crisis communication into a new environment of social media communication. The value of this research is the merger of knowledge from different management sciences into a new multidisciplinary science.

Supervisors: Dr. E. Constantinides; ir J.W.L. van Benthem

Keywords crisis communication, , online reputation, , reputation management, , social media

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. 3rd IBA Bachelor Thesis Conference, July 3rd, 2014, Enschede, The Netherlands. Copyright 2014, University of Twente, Faculty of Management and Governance. 1. INTRODUCTION has proven to satisfy the demands for being securely Until the mid 1990s, reputation was a relatively wide and established. unsystematically researched topic for the field of business To fill this gap in existing management science, the following studies. There were several different definitions for several research problem will be answered in this paper: subfields of research (Fombrun & Riel, 1997). In 1996, How should commercial organizations deal with social media Fombrun and Rindova established an integrative definition for generated reputation threats and safeguard a stable corporate corporate reputation: “A corporate reputation is a collective image? representation of a firm’s past actions and results that describes the firm’s ability to deliver valued outcomes to multiples To answer this problem the following sub-questions will be stakeholders. It gauges a firm’s relative standing both internally discussed and answered while serving as a golden thread. with employees and externally with its stakeholders, in both its 1. What are the elements of social media and how can they competitive and institutional environments”. Fombrun and affect organizations? Rindova (1996) further mention that reputation is a “fragile intangible asset”. While assets of organizations are managed, 2. What are reputation threats in social media? Fombrun considerably contributed to the establishment of 3. How can reputation threats be identified and categorized? reputation management as a science. Although the science of 4. How should companies react to threats? reputation management is relatively young compared to other research fields, it already has experienced a dramatic and It will do so with an application of theoretical knowledge ground-breaking change since the beginning of the 21st century. gained from a critical literature review of well-established Since the rise of the and mobile Internet, worldwide literature from journals mainly dealing with the topics of communication has become accessible at nearly no cost, for Marketing, Public Relations, Corporate Communication, almost everyone, almost everywhere and at almost all times Business Strategy such as Business Horizons, Public Relations (Nitzan & Libai, 2011). This technological development was Review, Corporate Public Relations Review, Journal of Public the basis for the establishment and of social media interaction. Relations Research and many others. Social media applications are basic instruments for The conclusion and the discussion part of this paper will interpersonal communication, communication from persons to provide the reader with a dense understanding of the research audiences or even communication with institutions. They enable field of reputation management in crisis situations in the age of to share experiences with products or services publicly by social media. This understanding will be based on the ‘seven providing a certain degree of anonymity (Krishnamurthy & functional building blocks of social media’ as discussed by Kucuk, 2009). Kietzmann, Hermkes, McCarthy and Silvestre (2011), which For the field of reputation management this implicates that serves as base frame for the understanding how organizations stakeholders are able to communicate about issues concerning a are or can be affected by social media. The ‘Situation Crisis particular company nearly effortless by using social media. The Communication Theory’, abbreviated as SCCT, that has been importance for businesses of this change becomes clear when established by Coombs (2004) serves as a guidance through the they realize that “Anyone can say anything about any topic” identification and categorization as well as reaction and (Allemang & Hendler, 2011). As Osswald, Portmann, and response parts of this research. Since this model is already a Meier (2011) mention, this means that even if a person does not very basic element in the topic of crisis communication and has have explicit knowledge about a topic he talks about online, his constantly been further developed, it is a very vivid object, word can be spread around the world. Another important, and which fits perfectly in the vivid domain of reputation maybe the most important, change is the shift of control about management in social media. The theory of this model will be an organizations’ information that is discussed publicly. As reframed in the context of social media interaction by the Gaines-Ross mentions in 2010, is criticism not anymore creation cross connections based on literature from Mangold dependent from the information an institution provides to the and Faulds (2009), Vollenbroek, Vries, Constantinides and public. Besides that, she explains that the publicly discussed Kommers (2014) Jin and Fisher Liu (2010) and many others. In content is not always based on the truth nor does it give the total this paper is based on the research of 48 articles and criticized any advance notice. combines the gained knowledge in an integrative approach. While a companies’ reputation is fragile and dependent on past 2. LITERATURE REVIEW actions, negative information, might it be true or not, can cause To fully understand the impact social media can have on severe damage, if not an organizational crisis, in almost no organizations, this part will give an in-depth discussion of the time. Therefore such situations are handled by a companies’ elements and their functionality of social media The developed . understanding will then give a transition to the elements and Crisis management is a discipline that aims on identifying, identification of reputation threats and then be integrated in an protecting and if not possible rescuing and repairing the damage approach that aims on giving advice on reaction strategies for experienced (Benoit, 1997). As Coombs in 1998 mentions threats. should an organization utilize an analytic system that focuses on the elements of crises. While the elements and dimensions of 2.1 Elements of Social Media traditional communication have shifted significantly due to the Several researchers are nowadays describing problems that emergence of social media platforms it is necessary to adapt the organizations have when it comes to coping with social media. established strategies to the new environment. Many organizations seem to have a lack in knowledge and are mismanaging the social web experience and communication This research therefore aims on bringing together existing and (Kietzmann et al., 2011). The first step in coping with social established theories, strategies and frameworks about crisis media for an organization is to create a basic knowledge of it. management by creating a transition into the new dimensions of According to Kaplan and Haenlein (2010), “Social Media is a reputation threats for commercial organizations from social group of Internet-based applications that build on the media users. Although there is already a decent amount of ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0 and that research done in this topic, yet, it was not found a model that

1 allow the creation and exchange of User Generated Content” (p. the possibility to evaluate the reputation of users, which can be 61). With the aim to understand the features of such important for organizations too, e.g. for identifying and applications, Kietzmann et al. (2011) created a framework evaluating the importance of particular influencing users. A consisting of seven elements, each representing a function of more profound discussion on monitoring can be found in the social media. ‘Identification and Categorization’ part. Identity: A user can reveal his identity directly or indirectly. He Groups: The last dimension of Social media is about interaction can directly provide information about himself as well as he can of users within special groups or communities. Organizations indirectly create an image of his character and preferences via can learn about attitudes within such groups and make his behaviour (Kietzmann et al., 2011, Kaplan & Haenlein, estimations about the synergies with other dimensions. 2010). As mentioned by Krishnamurty and Kucuk (2010), a certain degree of anonymity for the user can be the result. Kietzmann et al. (2011) used these seven dimensions to create a Logically, this is strongly depending on the information the user model that they called ‘the honeycomb of social media’. A provides. picture of this can be seen in Appendix 2. Conversations: Conversations in social media can have As it was shown, influence is a strong keyword in the social different forms and are a major topic for organizations. Typical media environment. Social media influencers, in the following online conversations are tweeting, blogging or discussion with named SMI’s, play an important role for consumers who are the aim of looking for relevant information. There are however about to make decisions. Freberg, Graham, McGaughey and also some users that use the social media environment as a Freberg (2011) found in their exploratory, that SMIs are rather platform for strengthening their voice in order to proclaim chosen as a source for recommendations than information messages about “humanitarian causes, environmental problems, published by the CEO of an organization. This complements the economic issues or political debates” (Beirut, 2009). The finding of Foux (2006) that information published in social conversations dimension is from particular importance for media is rather trustworthy than corporate published organizations since its content can be of harming nature for information with respect to products or services. This organizations. Anyways, firms can use conversations to interact perception echoes the trend that consumers, who are about to with users in the online marketplace. This can have positive as make buying-decisions, are increasingly often looking for well as negative impacts for organizations and should, for this information in the social media environment (Mangold & reason, be handled with special caution. For organizations, Faulds, 2009). While consumers do not only seek information other important aspects are the possibilities it offers for to make decisions but actively take part in the communication monitoring their online reputation (McCarthy, Lawrence, with SMIs, who actually find enjoyment in their advisory Wixted & Gordon, 2010). This however, will be discussed in function (Freberg et al., 2011 proved the assumption of Straley, the ‘identification of reputational threats’ part. 2010), an organizations’ ability to control the content is decreased (Mangold & Faulds, 2009). Thus, visualizing that Sharing: Users can exchange or distribute content, however, SMIs do not necessarily provide the social media environment this dimension is not only concerned with this but also with with positive but also negative impressions (Gorry & content management of organizations. In case an organization Westbrook, 2009), gives a more specific impression on how provides users a platform to interact, they definitely have to reputational threats can be created and how important social keep an eye on the content and eventually take action. For media for organizations is. instance should inappropriate content or content that violates the law be removed. But this dimension also provides the 2.2 Reputation Threats in Social Media companies insights into user behaviour and is therefore strongly However, not all the content that first seems to threaten the related to the other dimensions. organizations reputation is automatically a threat for the Presence: This dimension is about availability and possibility of reputation. Instead, it can become a threat if the organization communication. More precisely, it can provide information does not react properly, but many problems can be solved via about accessibility and location of users or organizations. customer relations, which could eventually even result in a Especially when it comes to communication between users and organizations the live experience, meaning that communication beneficial situation. (NEMO Conference, 2013) is in real-time, plays an important role for the user and can have A short parenthesis concerning the terminology of the a major impact on the relationship between these parties. In following: In 2006, Brown, Dacin, Pratt and Whetten 2010, Kaplan and Haenlein point out that a higher presence can points out that “image concerns what an certainly result in higher influence for conversations. Their organizational member wants others to know (or classification matrix of social media can be found in the believe they know) about the organization, while appendix. reputation is a perception of the organization actually Relationships: Relationships can be described with the help of held by an external stakeholder”. He further states the social theory of structure and flow (Borgatti & Foster 2003, Granovetter, 1973). The structure of relationships of a particular that in literature, image and reputation are used user can depict his influence on others. Influential users, which interchangeably. For this paper, we will use are from particular interest for organizations, have a large ‘reputation’ even if in sources the word ‘image’ is amount of dense relationships. The strength of relationships can used. For the reason that this paper discusses attacks be seen via the frequency interaction that takes place. The of users on the reputation of a , which includes longer lasting and more emotional the interaction, the stronger the attack on the image, it is proceeded in this is the relationship (Krackhardt, Nohria & Eccles, 1992). In manner. contrast, Hansen (1999) points out that weak relationships can be described as distant and infrequent. In an environment that is based on communication, such as social media, it is only reasonable to assume that threats can Reputation: This dimension is related to the organizational as well as to user reputation. Organizations should monitor the only be a result of communication. One of the reasons that own reputation in anyway. Furthermore social media can offer cause individuals to create negative content is anger (Coombs &

2 Holladay, 2007). But what should be seen as negative content social media, as part of the Internet, has a facilitating and for an organization? Benoit (1997) points out that an attack or accelerating function (Gonzales-Herrero & Smith, 2008). complaint against an organization is based on: 2.3 Identification of threats and “1. The accused is held responsible for an action” and Categorization “2. That act is considered offensive” (p.178) One could assume that to an organization should most probably Interestingly, he adds to these components that the perception, be quite easy to identify threats for their reputation. But the meaning: ‘what is thought by the external stakeholder’, outdoes identification of threats is much more than simply recognizing the reality in importance. This corresponds to what Coombs that something is a rumor, complaint or that there has occurred (2006) mentions when he discusses the roots of crisis a failure within the company that has now gone public. communication. He highlights that the creation of negative Identification of threats is a very extensive work for word-of-mouth, depends on the perception of an organizations’ organizations and demands from them a certain amount of responsibility. He further explains that Weiner (1986) built his resources (Kietzmann et al., 2011). The following text gives an attribution theory on the fact that individuals have to see explanation: someone being responsible for negative events. Users will therefore attribute the responsibility either to an internal party While issues created in the social media environment can end that is directly involved in the issue or to an external party up spreading like wildfires, it is from particular importance to whose actions have indirectly led to this situation. In addition, if monitor them (Coombs & Holladay, 2008). However, due to the the attributed responsibility increases, the possible damage on a complex and gigantic nature of the social media environment, it reputation also increases (Coombs, 2006). To a rational is virtually impossible to gain an entire overview of all the thinking person, it might seem strange that the reality is less content created. Hence, organizations have to understand how important for crisis potential than untruth. This can be linked to the environment they are acting in works (Kietzmann et al. what Gaines-Ross (2010) mentions by saying that reputation 2011). Kietzmann et al. (2011) therefore state that threats do not necessarily need to be rational. There is another organizations, after having understood the functionality of the important keyword that can directly be related to the untruth: environment, need to find out if and where users create content that concerns the organization. To facilitate this, they suggest Rumors have potential to threaten the reputation of an persistently scanning social media platforms by using the organization due to the fact that, although consisting of wrong ‘honeycomb of social media’ as a lens. By doing so, it should information (Coombs and Holladay, 2005), they can meet the be focused on identifying SMIs (Kietzmann et al., 2011) who expectations of customers. (Jin and Fisher Liu, 2010). Eccless, “have more knowledge and experience regarding a specific Newquist and Schatz (2007) mention a change of expectations issue than the average public and/or are more interested in customers have as one of the major factors that increase risk for learning about a specific issue than the average public” an organizations’ reputation. While users can freely (Perlmutter, 2008). However, Vollenbroek et al. (2014) communicate in the social media environment, organizations identified three parameters of influence in social media: have nearly no power to stop the creation of rumors. This clearly depicts a situation in which an organization has low • The influential actor, which can be seen as the SMI personal control, as mentioned by Coombs in 1995. In contrast, • The influential interaction, happening between the actor high personal control would be if the organization acted and the receiver, who promotes the message consciously harming towards any party. Thus, “personal control • The influential network, which is utilized as the audience reflects whether the event’s cause is controllable or for the interaction. uncontrollable by the actor” (Coombs, 2004, p.267). Personal Vollenbroek et al. (2014) furthermore found 27 indicators that control is one of the dimensions, Coombs mentions (2004) in can help identifying behavioural influence in the social media his discussion of attribution theory with respect to environment. Figure 1 depicts their list of the top ten indicators organizational responsibility of crisis situations. The locus they identified being most important. Vollenbroek et al. (2014) dimension is congeneric to personal control. It describes highlight, that a change in an indicators’ value is directly related whether the cause of the situation is situation dependent or to the influence. rather an actor (Coombs, 2004; McAuley Duncan & Russell, Figure 1: Top-10 indicators for behavioural influence ranked in 1992; Russell, 1982; Wilson, Cruz, Marshall, & Rao, 1993). decreasing importance Another dimension that affects the perception of responsibility of a negative event is external control. Strong external control describes a situation happening to a party as being dependent from another parties’ decisions. Thus, external control describes the extent to which an external party controls a situation (Coombs, 2004). Stability is the last dimension that affects the perception of responsibility as discussed by Coombs (2004). It describes the history of negative, respectively crisis, situations of a specific party (in this context of course an organization). Has there happened more of such situations, is the situation being seen as unstable in contrast to a stable situation depicting no significant crisis (Coombs, 2004). This can be referred to a very basic human assumption: If one does not learn from his recent failures, there must something be wrong. Summarizing, a reputation threat is an issue that, depending on the perception of responsibility for the cause of a negative event, can result in a crisis situation for an organization, while Source: Vollenbroek et al. (2014)

3 But the identification and eventually engaging with SMIs 1. The victim cluster includes situations in which users (Kietzmann et al., 2011), although an important, is only a attribute very little to no responsibility to an organization. preliminary step. They key ingredient, again, lies in constantly These are situations, such as natural catastrophes, on which monitoring them (Jin & Fisher Liu, 2010). an organization has no influence Reading the content created by five, ten or fifteen SMIs that 2. The accidental cluster includes situations in which users post several times daily all over the world in different time attribute only a little responsibility to an organization zones would probably be doable by a small team of employees. But this is not what is meant with monitoring, and it would in Such as situations which are seen as not being intended or several cases not even touch the range of content generated, situations that happened through an failure that was not aside from the lack in efficiency. To properly monitor the social foreseeable media environment it is necessary to create metrics (Kietzmann 3. The intentional cluster includes situations in which users et al. 2011). These metrics can, depending on what they aim on, attribute very much responsibility to an organization provide the company with important information. The These are situations that resulted from a human failure or indicators depicted in Figure 1 could be used to set up the mismanagement, thus, most probably could have been pattern for metrics in monitoring the influence in social media prevented interaction. The following provides some examples of metrics in social media, as discussed by Kietzmann et al. (2011): As earlier found, does the severity of a threat strongly increase as more responsibility is attributed (Coombs, 2007). The • Measuring the number of mentions over a specific period division of threats in such clusters can, therefore, be directly in time provides an organization with information about related to Benoit’s (1997) statement that the severity of the their strength or popularity. issue must be determined. • Looking at specific users and measuring how often they mention an organization would provide the organization The classification of threats is probably the most crucial part in with a degree of passion these users have. the preparation of reactions. The reason for this is that every • Comparing the total number of mentions of a specific further step that aims on controlling or diminishing a threat for organization with the amount of different participants in the reputation of an organization can only function properly discussions about the specific organization delivers a when the decision was made right. The next chapter will show degree of reach. why. • Measuring the positive against the negative mentions provides an organization with information about the 2.4 Reaction and Response sentiment When talking about user conversations, Kietzmann et al. (2010) mention: “Firms should know when to chime in” (p. 245). In These metrics play an important role with respect to the case an individual is threatened and has decided not to ignore recognition of trends in the conversations (McCarthy et al. but to react, it generally has two options, either it responds 2010). A sudden increase in the number of mentions could, for offensive or defensive (Thomas, Peters, Howell & Robbins, example, reveal an evolving issue. Monitoring the sentiment 2012). But for organizations, the decision to join a conversation could reveal whether this issue is from negative or positive is not made that easily, since a wrong decision can have nature. tremendous consequences for an organizations’ reputation Particularly today, many internet firms have realized Therefore, a threat leads organizations rather to the question, if, the importance of monitoring tools, which led to a when and how to join. whole new sub-industry of web monitoring tools. To come to the right decision, organizations have to look in the A very different approach that helps monitoring issues is past; more precisely, they have to look at their crisis history in providing the users a social media platform, such as a forum or an exhaustive manner (Coombs, 2004). The reason for this, a , which aims on conversations with customers. This again, is the perception of users. When users think of an enables an organization to shape the conversations and engage organization that actually faces a threat, their perception of the with customers. In Addition, it enables an organization to organization, the current threat and/or the current crisis will be provide information in order to resolve the issue in a frame they influenced by past crisis (Coombs, 2004). An organization that provide (Mangold & Faulds, 2009). projects others to have a consistent problem if it struggles from crisis to crisis depicts what is defined as having a high However, when a negative issue is identified, it is useful to be consistency (Kelley & Michela, 1980). prepared (Benoit, 1997). Since time in social media is a crucial Another important factor that arises from the past behaviour of factor (Gaines-Ross, 2010), being prepared can speed up the an organization is called distinctiveness (Kelley & Michela, time to respond and even prevent from making a failure. Being 1980). It depicts the degree to which an organization had a good prepared means that there should be a planning that addresses or bad reputation and ranges from low to high. If an who responsible is and what the contingencies are (Benoit, organization has already had a bad reputation, which is caused 1997). Gaines-Ross (2010) intensifies this statement by by badly companying stakeholders, its distinctiveness is low advising to build ‘frontline teams’. Benoit (1997) further states, (Coombs, 2007). The importance of these factors becomes clear that such a planning should be tailored to the organization, its when Coombs (2007) highlights, that if an organization has a industry and, very importantly, it should be adjustable to the high consistency or a low distinctiveness, the degree to which situation and to the audiences. The next step is to analyse the users will attribute guilt to an organization is worsened. In accusations (Benoit, 1997). This can also be referred to Coombs praxis, this would mean that an organization that accidentally (2007) who states, that the first step in the analysis of a threat made a mistake would be accused of having made this on should be to assess the responsibility. As already discussed, it is purpose. Complementary to this would a threat that would from necessary to be aware of that fact that the assessment of the fact be categorized as ‘victim’ by users be recognized as responsibility from users is subjective and strongly depending ‘accidental’ (Coombs, 2007). From this perspective, an on the users’ believe (Coombs, 1995). Therefore, Coombs and organization logically has to accept more responsibility if the Holladay (2002) suggests a classification into three crisis perceptions of users are influenced (Coombs, 2007). If the clusters:

4 organization accepts the attributed responsibility this must then Rebuilding strategies include compensations and/or apology. be expressed in a statement. This task should be taken by an Apology in this case would mean that the organization ‘official spokesperson’ from the organization (Gaines-Ross, acknowledges its responsibility (Coombs, 2007), which can also 2010). In most cases the CEO serves as ‘human face’ of an result in claims (Benoit, 1997). Since rebuilding is the most organization (Gaines-Ross, 2010). expensive strategy to choose, in most cases it is the most These are the basic response strategies as developed by Coombs unfavourable strategy but sometimes simply has to been chosen. (2006): Denial responses would have the form of an attack of the issue 1. Denial strategies aim on clarifying that the organization creator stating that the accusation is based on false information, has nothing to do with the accusations. simply emphasizing the nonexistence of a crisis or blaming a 2. Diminish strategies aim on mitigation of issues. They third party. involve much risk for an organization and should always Diminishing responses would be excuses or justification. rely on facts. However, excuses and justification should aim on minimizing 3. Rebuild strategies aim on highlighting what is done in the issue by emphasizing that the organizations intention was order to help stakeholders through a crisis. not to make any harm, the issue was out of control or even Since these strategies are only a rough explanation on how an mentioning that the issue was trivial (Coombs, 2007). organization can react, the following will explain the decisions Coombs (2007) additionally highlights that a combination of that can be made as discussed by Coombs (2007). denial and diminish will lower the performance. A short recall of the factors identified: Coombs and Holladay (2008) add to the theory, that there are • There are three clusters which depict the attributions of eventually parties involved that are not harmed by the issue. responsibility for a crisis: The victim cluster, the accidental When the aim of the accused organization is to shift the cluster and the intentional cluster perceptions of such parties, it is rather advantageous to facilitate • It is important whether there has been a history of crisis sympathy and compensation. They further add, that the focus of • Further does the prior reputation play an important role: this model in the first place is to help organizations that negative, neutral or positive stakeholders are not harmed. Therefore, it should, when it comes to such issues and the organization knows it was Figure 2: Interdependencies in the SCCT preventable, never elude their responsibility (Coombs & Holladay, 2008). If it comes to light that the organization denied their responsibility incorrectly, the trustworthiness of the organization will be damaged tremendously (Benoit, 1997). 3. CONCLUSIONS Former literature has shown that threats for an organizations reputation arise from crisis situations of organizations (Jin & Fisher Liu, 2010). This research has revealed that crisis situations can be facilitated and accelerated via the social media environment and therefore threaten the reputation of organizations tremendously. Although the elements for

reputation threats and crisis situations are mixed up due to the Source: Coombs (2007) increasing of social media as a source for knowledge,

the established crisis communication theory of Coombs (2002, In victim situations, which are depicted by minimal or low 2007), namely SCCT, still seems to be applicable. This is attributions for responsibility as well as no history of similar complementary to what Gonzales-Herrero and Smith in 2008 situations there are some options for the organization. If the mention by discussing that crisis communication has to be fitted organization has had a neutral or positive prior reputation, it is to social media by adapting the tools. This ‘Situational Crisis advised to adjust the information and instruct the parties Communication Theory’ was originally created to help involved. But if the organization has had a negative reputation organizations cope with crisis situations in order to prevent the or if it has had similar crisis, it is advised to respond in corporate reputation from being harmed and eventually repair it diminishing fashion. if it already was harmed. It was not related to reputation threats Anyhow, when the upcoming issues are about ‘”workplace that arise from social media. Fisher Liu, Austin and Jin (2012) violence, product tampering, natural disasters and rumors” (p. found in their study that statements of organizations that were 173), Coombs (2007) advises organizations to emphasize being concerned with defensive, supportive or evasive content were also a victim of the situation. Another option in rumor situations seen rather trustworthy when provided via traditional is to simply use a denial response. This can also be an option if communication then via social media communication channels. the issue identified is a challenge. Laczniak, Thomas, DeCarlo and Sridhar (2001) have found in In accident situations, which are depicted by low attributions of their study about word-of-mouth communication that if responsibility an organization should choose to use a negative content about an issue is credited to the accuser, the diminishing response when there has not been prior similar parties that catch the issue will not think worse about the situations and the reputation was neutral or even positive, accused. Their findings can be related to the quality of the whereas the rebuild response should be taken if there actually negative content. They expand this by stating that “negative were prior similar issues, a prior negative reputation or if both is WOMC (Word-Of-Mouth-Communication) configured in a the case. strong and compelling manner, negatively affects brand If the issue had been preventable, there is no other option than evaluations” (p. 70), while “negative WOMC that is less to choose a rebuilding reaction strategy (Coombs, 2007). compelling could even have a positive effect on consumers It should now be clear when to choose which strategy to evaluations” (p. 70). Their interpretation of this can be related respond, but which are the forms in which these strategies can to Benoit (1998). Both state that an organization does not be expressed? always need to react on negative content from external parties. The following provides a short overview: Even if they wanted to join every conversation about them, they

5 simply would not be able to (Hallahan, 2010). When Gaines- reputation threats and safeguard a stable corporate image?) Ross (2008) talks about the interaction with users, she there are several aspects involved. It is important that highlights that an organization should never insist on organizations are aware of the threats and opportunities social demonstrating the power it has. media can create. The above given answers to research To answer the first research question (‘What are the elements of questions one to four provide a universally applicable guideline social media and how can they affect organizations?’), it was for many or probably most situations. However, organizations found that Kietzmann et al. (2011) provide with their theory should never forget that the social media environment is about ‘seven functional building blocks of social media’ a eminently vivid and permanently further developing which calls framework that can applied with the aim to clarify and establish for adjustments in strategies and techniques over and over. a focus on important and affecting elements of social media. 4. DISCUSSION This can by achieved by using the ‘honeycomb’ (see Appendix An organization should in anyway follow a set of rules for 2) as a lens while observing social media. Kietzmann et al. being prepared to handle threats from social media. Optimally, (2011) identified the following elements: Identity, these rules should include a framework for the identification of Conversations, Sharing, Presence, Relationships, Reputation the threat and lead via the threat categorization to a response and Groups strategy, as previously discussed in the literature review part. These are the basic elements of social media that have to be The organization should follow this framework strictly but still further evaluated in order to find the extent the organization is be able to adapt it to special situations. Using the framework of affected by them. Kietzmann et al. (2011) add that not all of Kietzmann et al. (2011) can be helpful in many cases. It will be these elements necessarily have to be featured and that most provide the organization with knowledge for creating an social media applications in general feature not more than four overview of the elements of social media and how they affect of these elements. the organizations. With this, a focus on details can be created, The answer to the second research question (What are such as SMIs that might create threats. Threats in the context of reputation threats in social media) has been found to being social media reputation management are found to be negative rooted in the attribution theory. While reputation threats, simply issue that are facilitated and accelerated by the social media put, are negative content that affect a party in an offensive way, environment, created by users and can result in crisis situations attribution theory indicates, that they are particularly dependent for companies. These threats are strongly depending on and from the perceptions an audience has and how much shaped by the perception users have of accused organization. responsibility it attributes to the accused about an issue. Internal To identify such threats it was found necessary to utilize control, external control and the stability dimension are shaping monitoring and defining special metrics that help organizations these perceptions. gaining knowledge. Using the top-ten indicators for influence in The identification threats (research question three: How can social behavior as a direction for metrics in monitoring will help reputation threats be identified and categorized?) is a matter of an organization in identifying who and where most influencing identifying influence, measuring and monitoring it. This can be is. When a threat actually is identified, the categorization of the accomplished by identifying social media influencers, issue should be done using the three clusters discussed by influential interaction and/or influential network. While Coombs (1995): constantly scanning with the aim of identification is an Victim cluster, Accidental cluster, Intentional cluster important issue, constantly monitoring the identified is too. The In order to decide whether and how to respond to such a threat, ‘Top-10 indicators of behavioural influence’ as developed by all perception shaping factors should be evaluated profoundly Vollenbroek et al. (2014) therefore are an important point of and an evaluation of which strategy should be chosen should interest when it comes to the creation of metrics to measure. take place: Deny, Diminish or Rebuild When a threat is identified, it can, depending on the attributed 4.1 Implications for Practice responsibility, be categorized into three clusters: The victim Regardless of the industry and whether it is actively engaged in cluster, the accidental cluster, the accidental cluster and the online businesses or not, an organization has to be aware of intentional cluster threats that can arise in the social media environment. It is Reaction strategies (research question four: How should strongly recommended that an organization should have a plan companies react to threats?) can be categorized into three main for crisis or threatening situation. This plan should be worked aims: Denial strategies, Diminish strategies and Rebuild out and integrated thoroughly into the organizational structure strategies. The literature has revealed that the decision which that will enable the organization to react promptly and without strategy to choose is dependent from the consistency of crisis risking a backfire situation, if the need arises. The organization situations (crisis history), the distinctiveness and the attributed should furthermore be aware of the fact that honesty and responsibility. While the identification and proper transparency are very important and will prevent the categorization of threats in some cases might be somewhat organization from making mistakes in responses to threats that difficult and therefore might result in a time delay, it is could possibly result in crisis situations. A useful start could be important to know that there are some basic response strategies the identification of employees that are able to identify and that can be applied or replied in any case regarded as worth a react to content in the social media setting. Furthermore, these response. The main idea of these answers lies in the central idea employees should follow the framework and permanently try to of the SCCT model of Coombs (1999), namely preventing improve and adjust it. Learning is a keyword. Nevertheless, stakeholders from harm. This can have the form of helping organizations should not see social media as of source for them to help themselves from the issue and/or helping them to threats but a source for knowledge. The proper handling of cope psychically. An important response to prevent threats and influence in social media can improve the organizations’ reputation from harm and, complementary, relationship to users and possible future customers by giving helping stakeholders dealing with such issues, is to highlight them a feeling of being heard, seen as important and being what the organization does in order to guard against further valued. issues of such kind (Coombs & Holladay, 2008). With regard to the main research problem (How should commercial organizations deal with social media generated

6 4.2 Implications for Science The topic of threat responses is a scarcely discussed and 8. Coombs, W. T. (1998). An analytic framework for researched science. There is a strong need for research that aims crisis situations: Better responses from a better on evidence for the application of crisis prevention and understanding of the situation. Journal of public communication in social media. This research gives an insight relations research, 10(3), 177-191. in the different topics that should be carefully observed when it is thought of threats from social media. Furthermore, it provides 9. Coombs, W. T. (2004). Impact of past crises on a transition from crisis communication to threat communication, current crisis communication insights from which, until now, has not been researched. Situational Crisis Communication Theory. Journal of , 41(3), 265-289. 4.3 Limitations This research, as all research papers relying on literature, has 10. Coombs, W. T. (2006). The protective powers of quite an amount of limitations. Since the applied theories and crisis response strategies: Managing reputational models have, in their own, limitations. The SCCT developed by assets during a crisis. Journal of Promotion Coombs has lacks with regard to its creation with by the Management, 12(3-4), 241-260. analysis of case studies and further development with the help of statistical evidence from student samples. Benoit’s guidelines 11. Coombs, W. T. (2007). Attribution theory as a guide instead are based on the analysis of best-practice examples. for post-crisis communication research. Public Relations Review, 33(2), 135-139. 4.4 Future Research The future in research of threats arising from social media and 12. Coombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting organization the prevention of crisis situations that can be evoked should try during a crisis: The development and to find empirical evidence for the transition made. It would be application of situational crisis communication from particular importance to find ways that enable companies theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(3), 163-176. to help stakeholders in unsatisfying situations and at the same time helping the organization to prevent from reputational 13. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2001). An threats. A very important term that always pops up when there extended examination of the crisis situations: A is a discussion about responses in social media is ‘speed’. The fusion of the relational management and symbolic implication of time in responses should definitely be a topic of approaches. Journal of Public Relations further research with regard to reputational threat. Research, 13(4), 321-340.

5. REFERENCES 14. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2002). Helping

Crisis Managers Protect Reputational Assets Initial 1. Allemang, D., & Hendler, J. (2011). Semantic web Tests of the Situational Crisis Communication for the working ontologist: effective modeling in Theory. Management Communication RDFS and OWL. Elsevier. Quarterly, 16(2), 165-186.

2. Austin, L., Fisher Liu, B., & Jin, Y. (2012). How 15. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2005). An audiences seek out crisis information: Exploring the exploratory study of stakeholder emotions: Affect and social-mediated crisis communication model. Journal crises. Research on emotion in organizations, 1, 263- of Applied Communication Research, 40(2), 188-207. 280.

3. Beirut. (2009, August 21). Why do people really 16. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2007). The tweet? The psychology behind tweeting! Retrieved negative communication dynamic: Exploring the June 29th, 2014, from impact of stakeholder affect on behavioral intentions. http://blog.thoughtpick.com/2009/08/why-do-people- Journal of Communication Management, 11(4), 300- really-tweet-the-psychology-behind-tweeting.html 312.

4. Benoit, W. L. (1997). Image repair discourse and 17. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2008). Comparing crisis communication. Public relations review, 23(2), apology to equivalent crisis response strategies: 177-186. Clarifying apology's role and value in crisis communication. Public Relations Review, 34(3), 252- 5. Borgatti, S. P., & Foster, P. C. (2003). The network 257. paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of management, 29(6), 991-1013. 18. Eccles, R. G., Newquist, S. C., & Schatz, R. (2007). Reputation and its risks.Harvard Business 6. Brown, T. J., Dacin, P. A., Pratt, M. G., & Whetten, Review, 85(2), 104-14. D. A. (2006). Identity, intended image, construed image, and reputation: an interdisciplinary framework 19. Fombrun, C. J., & Rindova, V. (1996). Who's tops and suggested terminology. Journal of the Academy and who decides? The social construction of of Marketing Science, 34(2), 99-106. corporate reputations. New York University, Stern School of Business, Working Paper, 5-13. 7. Coombs, W. T. (1995). Choosing the Right Words The Development of Guidelines for the Selection of 20. Fombrun, C., & Riel, C. B. M. (1997). The the “Appropriate” Crisis-Response reputational landscape. Corporate reputation review, Strategies.Management Communication 1-16. Quarterly, 8(4), 447-476.

7 21. Foux, G. (2006). Consumer-generated media: Get perspective. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 11(1), your customers involved.Brand Strategy, 8, 38-39. 57-73.

22. Freberg, K., Graham, K., McGaughey, K., & Freberg, 36. Mangold, W. G., & Faulds, D. J. (2009). Social L. A. (2011). Who are the social media influencers? A media: The new hybrid element of the promotion study of public perceptions of personality. Public mix. Business horizons, 52(4), 357-365. Relations Review, 37(1), 90-92. 37. McAuley, E., Duncan, T. E., & Russell, D. W. 23. Gaines-Ross, L. (2008). Corporate reputation: 12 (1992). Measuring causal attributions: The revised steps to safeguarding and recovering reputation. John causal dimension scale (CDSII). Personality and Wiley & Sons. Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(5), 566-573.

24. Gaines-Ross, L. (2010). Reputation warfare. Harvard 38. McCarthy, I. P., Lawrence, T. B., Wixted, B., & Business Review, 88(12), 70-76. Gordon, B. R. (2010). A multidimensional conceptualization of environmental 25. Gonzales-Herrero. A., & Smith, S. (2008). Crisis velocity. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), Management on the Web: How 604-626. Internet‐Based Technologies are Changing the Way Public Relations Professionals Handle Business 39. NEMO Conference 2013 Timothy Coombs Crisis, Crises. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Social Media & Zombies. (2013, December Management, 16(3), 143-153. 20). YouTube. Retrieved May 11, 2014, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sospe3H9oMs 26. Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American journal of sociology, 78(6), l. 40. Nitzan, I., & Libai, B. (2011). Social effects on customer retention. Journal of Marketing, 75(6), 24- 27. Gorry, G. A., & Westbrook, R. A. (2009). Winning 38. the internet confidence game. Corporate Reputation Review, 12(3), 195-203. 41. Osswald, M., Portmann, E., & Meier, A. (2011). Unscharfe, kontextbewusste Ontologien im Social Web. Bachelor thesis, Fribourg: University of 28. Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: Fribourg, Departement of Informatics. The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative science 42. Perlmutter, D. D. (2008). Blogwars: The new political quarterly, 44(1), 82-111. battleground.

29. Jin, Y., & Fisher Liu, B. (2010). The blog-mediated 43. Russell, D. (1982). The Causal Dimension Scale: A crisis communication model: Recommendations for measure of how individuals perceive causes. Journal responding to influential external . Journal of of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(6), 1137. Public Relations Research, 22(4), 429-455. 44. Straley, B. (2010). How to: Target social media 30. Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the influencers to boost traffic and . Retrieved world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of May 17, 2014., from Social Media. Business horizons, 53(1), 59-68. http://mashable.com/2010/04/15/social-media- influencers/ 31. Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual review of 45. Thomas, J. B., Peters, C. O., Howell, E. G., & psychology, 31(1), 457-501. Robbins, K. (2012). Social Media and Negative Word of Mouth: Strategies for Handing Unexpecting 32. Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P., & Comments. Atlantic Marketing Journal, 1(2), 7. Silvestre, B. S. (2011). Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of 46. Vollenbroek, W., Vries, S., Constantinides, E., & social media. Business horizons, 54(3), 241-251. Kommers, P. (2014). Identification of influence in social media communities. International journal of 33. Krackhardt, D., Nohria, N., & Eccles, R. G. (1992). web based communities, 10(3), 280-297. Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action. Harvard Press, Ch. The 47. Weiner, B. (1982). An attribution theory of Strength of Stong Ties: The Importance of Philos in motivation and emotion. Series in Clinical & Organizations, 216-239. Community Psychology: Achievement, Stress, & Anxiety. 34. Krishnamurthy, S., & Kucuk, S. U. (2009). Anti- branding on the internet. Journal of Business 48. Wilson, S. R., Cruz, M. G., Marshall, L. J., & Rao, N. Research, 62(11), 1119-1126. (1993). An attributional analysis of compliance‐ gaining interactions. Communications 35. Laczniak, R. N., DeCarlo, T. E., & Ramaswami, S. N. Monographs,60(4), 352-372. (2001). Consumers’ responses to negative word-of- mouth communication: An attribution theory

8 6. APPENDIX

Appendix 1: The honeycomb of social media

Kietzmann et al. (2011)

Appendix 2: Classification of Social Media by social presence/media richness and self-presentation/self disclosure

Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many thanks to Dr. E. Constantinides for bringing me on the right track with his constructive feedback.

9